If they could be turned off as the actual poll indicates, what's your beef, other than to impose your preference on others?
To me it is a little amusing that someone would take a sharpie and blot out all the section headings in his Bible instead of just ignoring them. But when he fights for blotting them out of my Bible via the Acc modules then his quirk has -- just a little :-) --overstepped its bounds.
Please understand I have no "beef" other than a concern for what the text actually says. Another way to put it, is what did the author, the writer actually say.
I'm coming from the position of a long time teacher. Since these headings are NOT written by the author they don't belong in the text. As others have pointed out, these are often commentary reflecting a theological point of view for a particular editor for a particular edition. Likewise, they are not consistent within a given translation.
Who's section headings should Accordance actually use? LIberal? Conservative? Catholic? Protestant? Should everyone be subjected to the vote for one point of view?
The reality is, this is an issue everyone struggles with in using (and in producing) any translation. At least one example has been cited in this topic's discussion and many other examples exist. If you would study the text, it's best to see it with as few distractions as possible. That's why it's always a poor method of study to read a commentary first.
I have no objection to you, me or anyone else adding anything to our notes. But when you fight for inserting anyone's commentary INTO the text (yes, that would include mine as well!), it just doesn't belong there.
Obviously we differ on the opinion for this poll. That's fine. I have simply expressed my opinion and why.
<i>Lester P. Bagley </i>